Allow the equivalent of It.IsAny with ref parameters in Setup

[ohadschn]

Following #105, it would be nice to be able to match any value of a passed by ref variable in Setup.

Per dotnet/csharplang#158 that can't currently be achieved using ref returns (e.g. ref T It.IsAnyRef<T>) with the current overloads that take expression trees.

However, it might be doable by accepting a delegate and decompiling it into an expression tree at runtime. That would involve quite some work though, and for something this specific perhaps the following would suffice:

mock.Setup(m => m.MethodWithByRefParams(...))
    .DoNotMatchByRefParams()
    ...;

[stakx]

Like you said, the C# language currently doesn't allow us to do this nicely, and lambda decompilation is possible (see e. g. this proof-of-concept prototype I cooked up a while ago), but will require Moq to become dependent on .NET Standard 2, and it would take some more work—I'd like to keep this open as an option for a 4.9 release or later.

For now, the least we can do is to add a helper method that "disables" matching for ref parameters, like the .DoNotMatchByRefParams() you suggested. I'll look into this.

[stakx]

@ohadschn - Quick question: Do you think a feature switch (Mock.Switches |= Switches.DoNotMatchRefParameters) instead of a setup verb setup.DoNotMatchRefParams() would also be agreeable?

The reason behind this is that I've realised that a .DoNotMatchByRefParams() setup method would only work in combination with mock.Verify() or mock.VerifyAll(), but not when you do a mock.Verify(m => m.Method(...)). We'd have to introduce several new Verify method overloads, which is something I'd really like to avoid.

On the other hand, a feature switch, which is more coarse-grained than the method because it sits at the mock level (instead of at the setup level) could easily be made to apply to all Verify calls:

var mock = new Mock<IHaveMethodsWithRefParameters>();
mock.Switches |= Switch.DoNotMatchRefArguments;
...
mock.Verify(m => m.Method(1, ref dummy, 2), ...);

(I know it's not quite as neat as the method, but it would be a more complete solution. And while we could of course have both, I'd prefer to introduce as few additions to the public API as possible.)

Thoughts?

[ohadschn]

How about something like:

mock.NoRefArgMatching().Verify(...)

Where NoRefArgMatching returns a wrapper for the mock with the switch enabled?
That way you could still decide to match refs on a case by case basis.

[stakx]

That would be a nice solution. Unfortunately, there's the question of how that method call would know when the switch needs to be reset. Also, setting up a temporary context where a "shared" switch is modified means that this method wouldn't be thread-safe / reentrant. 🙁

(Personally, I don't think that Setup nor Verify need to be thread-safe, because having any concurrency or parallelism in the Arrange or Assert stage of a test is perhaps not a good idea anyway. Nevertheless, Moq has in the past seen contributions to make mocks thread-safe wherever possible—perhaps because people also use Moq for purposes other than unit testing—it's probably not my call to reverse that community decision.)

[ohadschn]

I agree about managing this state, I was actually thinking about creating a new Mock with the same underlying object.. would that be possible?

[stakx]

In theory, perhaps yes. In practice, I'd say this approach isn't worth the required effort.

One would create a new Mock<T> object sharing all internal state with the original except for the switch state. It would take a lot of work to ensure this doesn't cause more trouble than it solves. Just one example, you'd then have several mocks with the exact same name, but comparing them with == or object.ReferenceEquals would reveal that they're not actually the same instance. From a user's perspective, that could be quite confusing. I'd say it's better we don't do this.

[ohadschn]

How about something like

mock.Verify(m => NoRefVerify(m.Method(1, ref dummy, 2)), ...);

Where NoRefVerify simply returns whatever it gets (including void overloads) and is only there for your expression analyzer to be able to spot?

[stakx]

Your last suggestion just gave me an idea. It never occurred to me until now that we could simply do this:

mock.Setup(m => m.Method(…, ref It.Ref<int>.IsAny, …));
//                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The generic parameter obviously isn't in the usual place —it would ideally follow IsAny instead of preceding it—but it should be perfectly feasible:

static partial class It
{
    public static class Ref<T>
    {
        public static T IsAny;
    }
}

(Credits go to @michal-ciechan, the above technique is inspired by what he did in #343.)

[ohadschn]

Nice! Maybe It.IsAny<int>.Ref?

[stakx]

There's already the It.IsAny<T>() method. The compiler won't allow overloading it with an identically-named type.

[ohadschn]

Well I suppose you could do ItIs.Any<int>.Ref :)
But really the name isn't that important, whatever works would be great.

[stakx]

All done. As a small bonus, "any" matching for ref parameters is now also directly supported with .Protected() setups:

mock.Protected().Setup("ProtectedMethod", …, ItExpr.Ref<int>.IsAny, …);

Well I suppose you could do ItIs.Any<int>.Ref :)

Just to answer this, I opted to stay with It.Ref<int>.IsAny so that It remains the single "discovery / entry point" for the standard matchers.

I chose Ref instead of ByRef for two reasons:

1. ByRef is a keyword in VB.NET, and while this shouldn't cause actual problems, it's often a good idea not to use keywords as identifiers.

2. ByRef would technically include out parameters. Ref is closer to the C# keyword ref, which is what is really targeted.

[stakx]

@ohadschn - I just published a pre-release version 4.8.0-rc1 on NuGet. It has all the new ref stuff (among other things) that we've been discussing in several issues. Feel free to test away.

[asyle83]

Hi, I have a problem with a method that has a ref parameter of type Array:
Method(int param1, string param2, ref Array param3)
param3 is an output parameter and must be not null in order to continue the code execution but I don't know how to mock it.
I tried:
_mock.Setup(m => m.Method(It.IsAny<int>(), It.IsAny<string>(), ref It.Ref<Array>.IsAny));
and also
_mock.Setup(m => m.Method(It.IsAny<int>(), It.IsAny<string>(), ref arrayTest));
where arrayTest is an array populated with some data.

But in any case during the test execution, the ref parameter is always null...
How can I solve?
Thanks

EDIT: Solved

delegate void MethodCallback(int param1, string param2, ref Array param3);

_mock.Setup(m => m.Method(It.IsAny<int>(), It.IsAny<string>(), ref It.Ref<Array>.IsAny)) 
                .Callback(new MethodCallback((int param1, string param2, ref Array param3) => {
                    param3= arrayRes;
                }));

[stakx]

Sorry, accidentally pressed button.